Quelle surprise:
Culture Explorer @CultureExploreX 23/12/2025
This image quietly destroys one of the most repeated myths in history.
What we call “classical” architecture is not Greek but really a continuous thread across civilizations. The real shock is how much of the ancient world had already been standing tall before the Greeks.
 |
| Location (BBC) |
A team of explorers working off the western coast of Cuba say they have discovered what they think are the ruins of a submerged city built thousands of years ago. Researchers from a Canadian company used sophisticated sonar equipment to find and film stone structures more than 2,000 feet (650 metres) below the sea's surface. [...] Advanced Digital Communications is one of four firms working in a joint venture with President Fidel Castro's government to explore Cuban waters, which hold hundreds of treasure-laden ships from the Spanish colonial era. The explorers first spotted the underwater city last year, when scanning equipment started to produce images of symmetrically organized stone structures reminiscent of an urban development. [...] "It's a really wonderful structure which really looks like it could have been a large urban centre," ADC explorer Paulina Zelitsky told the Reuters news agency.
 |
| A computer-generated image based on the sonar imaging of the underground structures off the coast of Cuba (photo credit: courtesy of ADC cor) |
" The story was given a new lease of life thanks to its exposure in Ancient Aliens, but no new information about it has emerged. After the initial flurry of excitement, once scientists began to look critically at the data, especially the sonar images, the story could be seen to be nothing more than hype. For anyone outside the small band of “alternative researchers” and New Age true believers, the story simply died for lack of evidence. But when did a lack of evidence ever stop woo-woos making unsupported claims?"
 |
| How would you take a whole prehistoric household and family group through this? (Google Earth) |
"Instead of glibly using migration as a black-box mechanism explaining genetic (and you assume linguistic) spread, what efforts are being expended to identify the reasons for and mechanisms of the boldly-drawn postulated fantasy-arrow "migrations" (with families, crops, livestock, household equipment etc) straight across major geographical features, (mountain ranges, rivers like the Volga and every one of its tributaries) and through incredibly [ecologically] diverse regions. What were the livestock en route fed for example? Would you go along te river valleys (thus having to croiss every tributary big or small) or along the watersheds (but then how would your livestock herd drink?). Would you barge through the dense forests, or go round them, and then how would you know where you are going?
If a community decides to pack up and move on to another area (why?) why would - according to your model - they all go in the same way - ending up clustered together in a new reegion which means competition for the resoourvces there? Why would not enterprising migrants head in diverse directions, well away from the lines you drew on the maps?
How did this "migration" work in real - human - terms? "
There are several sites in the Americas that show evidence for human habitation well prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. Of these Pre-LGM sites, each of the sitesis not without some controversy, though none rise to the level of the Hueyatlaco site in the Valsequillo Basin of Mexico. This project has attracted comments of the type we see in social media (this one from Julian Dorey):
"Archaeological COVERUPS are not myth! They've been happening and one site completely BROKE the timeline and was erased from history once academia found out. Hueyatlaco didn’t get rejected because it lacked evidence. It got rejected because the evidence didn’t fit the story".The background can be judged from this useful informed and well-referenced text: Carl Feagans, 'Dating the Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site (Valsequillo)' A Hot Cup of Joe October 7, 2024.
The Hueyatlaco archaeological site, nestled within Mexico’s Valsequillo Basin near Puebla, presents an intriguing puzzle for archaeologists due to its contested dating.Initial excavation in the 1960s unearthed stone tools right alongside the remains of extinct Pleistocene mammals. This obviously suggests a human presence.
That part isn’t really controversial though. The real challenge was, and still is, pinning down a definitive date. Through various methods, the site was, back then, dated to as young as 25,000 years old and as old as 370,000 years.
A vast discrepancy to be sure, but you have to remember: this was the 1960s. Tom Dillehay still hadn’t excavated Monte Verde to obtain his then controversial dates of 14,800 years BP for this site in Southern Chile!
The first team to excavate at Hueyatlaco did so in 1962, led by Cynthia Irwin-Williams. She was a remarkable archaeologist and a genuine ground-breaker for women in archaeology. Because of the controversy surrounding the site, Irwin-Williams never published a final report despite the decades of research she and her colleagues put into it.
[...] When Barney Szabo, Harold Malde, Cynthia Irwin-Williams published their first paper on the site, they arrived at radiocarbon dates for animal remains at over 35,000 BP and Uranium dates of between 200,000 and 320,000 BP. [...]
In 1973 Virginia Steen-McIntyre joined the excavation team and brought with her a new technique for dating that she developed called tephra hydration. [...] the tephra in the tool-bearing strata [produced] [...] a date around 260,000 BP. In addition, C.W. Naeser used fission track dating on ash samples from the same strata and arrived at a date of 370,000 BP (+/- 240,000 yrs). [...]
The dating of Hueyatlaco remains a subject of debate within the archaeological community. Recent studies point toward a Late Pleistocene age, but the site’s complex stratigraphy, potential for reworked materials, and the limitations of some dating techniques contribute to this ongoing controversy. [...]
Further research using a variety of dating techniques and a thorough understanding of the site’s geological context is essential to truly arrive a reliable conclusion for its earliest date of human occupation. [...] While it’s true there are some questions about the age of the site, most of the conclusions about dates were obtained when the dating methods were still being refined.
Recent work on site
I’m hopeful that some day new data will be obtained for these strata and their deposits using modern dating methods and that we’ll have a better understanding of what was really going on at this site and when. In fact, this site is a good example of why it’s important to not completely destroy a site through excavation since so much has changed in the way of archaeological and geological sciences since the 1960s.
.
"Archaeology with Flint Dibble" makes its mind up. "The Viral Pyramid Scans: The Ultimate Debunk of the Khafre Project" Dec 18, 2025
This year’s most viral archaeology conspiracy theory is the claims that there are megastructures located under the pyramids at Giza. This video presents the ultimate debunk of these claims, looking in detail at the hydrogeology of Giza and the issues it presents for such claims and assessing the methods developed by Filippo Biondi, Corrado Malanga, and Armando Mei. In the end, it’s clear these scans are a scam.A clinching piece of evidence is the one thatI raised some months ago - the lack of a spoilheap for such massive holes. Could have done with less vulgar language.
